Police Chief V Cwood Heights

Austin J. Riter (11755) (ariter@parrbrown.
com)
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.
101 South 200 East, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7840
Attorneys for Defendant Natalie C. Bruce
Michael W. Young (12282) (MYoung@parsonsbehle.com)

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Telephone: 801.532.1234
Attorneys for Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant Natalie C. Bruce
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
ERNEST ROBERT RUSSO, JR.,

STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE
Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED ANSWER,
COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSSCLAIM
vs. OF DEFENDANT NATALIE C. BRUCE
COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, a City;
NATALIE C. BRUCE, an individual; and (Jury Demanded)
JOHN DOE EMPLOYEES/AGENTS 1-10,
(Tier 3)
Defendants.
___________________________________
NATALIE C. BRUCE, Civil No. 200903436
Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant,
Judge Elizabeth A. Hruby-Mills
vs.
Counterclaim Defendant,
and
COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, a City,
Crossclaim Defendant.
4828-9365-8565.v1
Defendants and Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree
that Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff, and Crossclaim Plaintiff Natalie Bruce may file a Second
Amended Answer, Counterclaim and Crossclaim in the above-entitled matter. A proposed order
is submitted herewith.
DATED this 3rd day of August, 2020.
/s/ Michael W. Young

Michael W. Young
Attorneys for Counterclaimant and
Crossclaimant Natalie C. Bruce
DATED this 1st day of August, 2020.
ANDERSON HINKINS
/s/ T. Jake Hinkins (w/permission

T. Jake Hinkins
Taylor L. Broadhead
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant Ernest Robert Russo, Jr.
DATED this 31st day of July 2020.
PLANT, CHRISTENSEN & KANELL
/s/ Matthew D. Church (w/permission)

Matthew D. Church
Jeremy M. Seeley
Attorneys for Defendant and Crossclaim
Defendant Cottonwood Heights
2
4828-9365-8565.v1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3rd day of August, 2020, I filed the foregoing via the
GreenFiling system, which electronically served the following:
T. Jake Hinkins (jake@andersonhinkins.com)

Taylor L. Broadhead (taylor@andersonhinkins.com)
ANDERSON HINKINS
881 W. Baxter Dr.
South Jordan, Utah 84095
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Ernest Robert Russo, Jr.
Matthew D. Church (mchurch@pckutah.com)

Jeremy M. Seeley (jseeley@pckutah.com)
136 East South Temple, Suite 1700
Attorneys for Defendant and Crossclaim Defendant Cottonwood Heights
3
4828-9365-8565.v1
Austin J. Riter (11755) (ariter@parrbrown.com)
101 South 200 East, Suite 700
Telephone: (801) 532-7840
Michael W. Young (12282) (MYoung@parsonsbehle.com)

201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Telephone: 801.532.1234
Attorneys for Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant Natalie C. Bruce
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER,
Plaintiff, COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSSCLAIM
OF DEFENDANT NATALIE C. BRUCE
vs.
COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, a City; (Jury Demanded)
NATALIE C. BRUCE, an individual; and
JOHN DOE EMPLOYEES/AGENTS 1-10, (Tier 3)
Defendants.
___________________________________
Civil No. 200903436
NATALIE C. BRUCE,
Judge Elizabeth A. Hruby-Mills
Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant,
vs.
Counterclaim Defendant,
and
COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, a City,
Crossclaim Defendant.
4828-2903-9813.v1
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER1
Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Natalie C. Bruce
(“Bruce”) hereby submits this second amended answer (“Second Amended Answer”) to the
Complaint filed against her on or about May 15, 2020, by Plaintiff Ernest Robert Russo, Jr.
(“Russo”) and for her defenses states and avers as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
Bruce responds to the specifically numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows,
specifically reserving the right to amend and/or supplement her responses as further discovery
and investigation may warrant.
[PARTIES]
1. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof, deny.
thereof, deny.
thereof, deny.
4. Admit that Bruce is a Cottonwood Heights city council member. For lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny each and every
remaining allegation.
1The defenses in the Second Amended Answer are the same as those in the Amended Answer;
no changes have been made.
2
4828-2903-9813.v1
5. The allegations of this paragraph of the Complaint set forth a legal conclusion,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, for lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.
6. The allegations of this paragraph of the Complaint set forth a legal conclusion,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, for lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.
[FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION]
7. Admit.
8. Admit.
9. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph of the Complaint are directed
at Bruce, deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations are directed at
another Defendant, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof, deny such allegations.
3
4828-2903-9813.v1
13. Admit that “Cottonwood and/or Bruce received a request from Plaintiff for emails
and communications.” Deny each and every remaining allegation.
15. Admit that Bruce provided an affidavit in connection with Cottonwood Heights’
response to Russo’s records request. Deny each and every remaining allegation.
[NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION]
16. In responding to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Bruce incorporates her responses
to paragraphs 1-15.
17. The cause of action supported by the allegations of this paragraph of the
Complaint is not directed at Bruce, and therefore no response is required. To the extent that any
response is required, deny as to Bruce; and for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny as to Cottonwood Heights.
4
4828-2903-9813.v1
[INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]
to paragraphs 1-20.
5
4828-2903-9813.v1
[DEFAMATION]
to paragraphs 1-26.
6
4828-2903-9813.v1
7
4828-2903-9813.v1
[CIVIL CONSPIRACY]
to paragraphs 1-34.
[INVASION OF PRIVACY]
to paragraphs 1-39.
8
4828-2903-9813.v1
[TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE]
to paragraphs 1-43.
at Bruce, admit that Bruce became aware of the employment agreement between Cottonwood
Heights and Russo when the agreement last came up for renewal by Cottonwood Heights, but
deny that she knew one way or the other whether the contractual relationship was “valid.” To
the extent that the allegations are directed at another Defendant, for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny such allegations.
9
4828-2903-9813.v1
at Bruce, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof,
deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations are directed at another
Defendant, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
[REQUEST FOR RELIEF]
Bruce denies that Russo is entitled to any relief under the Complaint. Bruce further
denies that she has caused any damage to Russo or that Russo is entitled to recover any damages
from her.
THIRD DEFENSE
Bruce denies each and every allegation of the Complaint that is not expressly admitted
herein.
10
4828-2903-9813.v1
FOURTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by estoppel, waiver, and/or
unclean hands.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred because the statements
complained of are true or substantially true.
SIXTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred because the statements
complained of are incapable of conveying a defamatory meaning and/or constitute nonactionable
opinion.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred under Utah Code § 45-2-3(4).
EIGHTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by the common law fair report
privilege, and Bruce did not publish the complained-of statements with malice.
NINTH DEFENSE
TENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are privileged because the complained-of
statements concerned matters of legitimate public interest and were published by Bruce without
malice.
11
4828-2903-9813.v1
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by the common law fair comment
privilege, and Bruce did not publish the complained-of statements with malice.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred under Article I, sections 1 and 15
of the Utah Constitution.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by the incremental harm doctrine.
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
Russo has suffered no compensable damages as a result of Bruce’s alleged conduct.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
Russo has failed to mitigate any damages he claims to have sustained as a result of
Bruce’s alleged conduct.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
If Russo suffered any loss, injury, damage, or detriment, it was directly and proximately
caused and contributed to by the breach, conduct, acts, omissions, activities, carelessness,
recklessness, negligence, and/or intentional misconduct of Russo and/or those acting in concert
with him or under his control, and not by Bruce.
12
4828-2903-9813.v1
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred because Russo has failed to
adequately plead and/or cannot prove special damages.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
At all times relevant to this action Bruce exercised the requisite degree of care and
prudence in undertaking any of the conduct of which Russo complains.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Russo are barred because Russo is, or at all times
relevant to this action was, a public official, and Bruce did not act with actual malice.
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by the common law privilege
concerning publications made to protect the legitimate interest of the publisher, and Bruce did
not publish the complained-of statements with malice.
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by the Noerr-Pennington
doctrine.
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred because the Complaint fails to set
forth the language complained of in words or words to that effect. See Dennett v. Smith, 445
P.2d 983, 984 (Utah 1968); Nelson v. Target Corp., 2014 UT App 205, ¶ 25, 334 P.3d 1010.
13
4828-2903-9813.v1
TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, including without
limitation by Utah Code § 78B-2-302.
TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
At all times relevant to this action Bruce exercised the requisite degree of care and
prudence in undertaking any of the conduct of which Russo complains.
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
To the extent that Russo purports to allege any negligence claim against Bruce, Bruce did
not owe Russo a duty of care under the circumstances nor did she breach any such duty.
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by governmental immunity under
the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah.
TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
Some or all of Russo’s claims against Bruce are barred by the single publication rule.
TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
THIRTIETH DEFENSE
THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Bruce reserves the right to amend this Second Amended Answer if, during the process of
discovery or trial, Bruce learns or discovers a basis for additional affirmative defenses.
14
4828-2903-9813.v1
WHEREFORE, Bruce demands that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and on
the merits; that she be awarded her costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in connection
with this matter to the full extent allowed by law; and that she be awarded such other and further
relief as the Court deems just.
SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM2
Pursuant to Rule 15(a) and Rule 13(a) and 13(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant Natalie C. Bruce (“Bruce”) hereby counterclaims against
Counterclaim Defendant Ernest Robert Russo, Jr. (“Russo”) and crossclaims against Crossclaim
Defendant Cottonwood Heights (“Cottonwood Heights”), and for her claims for relief alleges as
follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Bruce is a resident of Salt Lake County, Utah.
2. At all relevant times, Russo has been the Chief of the Cottonwood Heights Police
Department, and he is a resident of Salt Lake County, Utah.
3. Crossclaim Defendant Cottonwood Heights is a municipality organized in the
State of Utah.
4. Jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in this court under Utah Code §§ 78B-3-1
et seq. and Rules 13 and 15 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. Beginning in the Spring of 2018, Chief Russo began a campaign of harassment
and intimidation against Bruce.
2 ThisSecond Amended Counterclaim and Crossclaim adds a new cause of action against Russo
under Utah Code § 78B-6-1405 and paragraphs 26-55 and 69-75 in support thereof.
15
4828-2903-9813.v1
6. Upon information and belief, the campaign of harassment and intimidation began
as a result of Bruce questioning the utility of using city resources to fund a police department in
lieu of using the Unified Police Department.
7. On March 20, 2018, Russo sent an email citywide to all employees claiming
Bruce had damaged morale of the police department and was hurting hiring efforts.
8. Approximately one week later, Assistant Chief Paul Brennaman openly chastised
Bruce in front of several police academy attendees for an unrelated incident involving a call
made to 911.
9. On March 30, 2018, someone broke into the Bruce’s home.
10. Also on March 30, Bruce is informed that Chief Russo had filed a GRAMA
request seeking all of Bruce’s emails from her city account. This request was approved and
Bruce was informed by City Manager John Park that anything Bruce says or communicates is
well-known.
11. On April 13, 2018, when Bruce enters her car to leave for a City Council meeting,
upon information and belief at the direction of Chief Russo, she finds a police vehicle parked at
the curb in front of her home.
12. On April 17, 2018 City Manager John Park admitted that the city was not treating
Bruce with the same courtesy extended to the council members who were men.
13. The pattern of using police vehicles to intimidate and harass Bruce continued for
several months. After almost every weekly city council meeting, and upon information and belief
at the direction of Chief Russo, police cars and officers would harass Bruce by pulling out in
front and behind her vehicle surrounding Bruce, flashing their bright lights at Bruce while
16
4828-2903-9813.v1
following her, yelling and hollering at Bruce as she walked to her vehicle, and other intimidating
actions.
14. On June 19, 2018, Russo confronts Bruce and tells her that the entire fraternity of
police have Bruce on their radar.
15. On November 27, 2018, numerous armed police officers line the back of the city
council room, upon information and belief at the direction of Chief Russo, to intimidate Bruce
for speaking against giving Chief Russo a 13.5 percent pay raise despite never having a job
review performed.
16. On November 28, 2018, an excessive number of police cars enter and occupy the
parking lot of a Pub (“Bout Time”) owned by Bruce and her husband.
17. The officers, upon information and belief at the direction of Chief Russo, where
there to intimidate and harass Bruce as well as interfere with her business interests. Indeed, this
is a well-known pattern used and applied by Chief Russo.
18. At or around this same time, Holladay City (the location of Bruce’s pub) received
two anonymous phone calls claiming there was underage drinking at Bruce’s pub. Upon
information and belief, these calls were made at the direction of Chief Russo as they also follow
a well-known pattern applied by Chief Russo to harass and intimidate business owners.
19. On November 29, 2018, police officers in the Cottonwood Heights Police
Department pulled behind the general manager of Bruce’s pub in Holladay and followed her to
Cottonwood Heights. Once in Cottonwood Heights the officer pulled over the general manager
for “lapsed insurance.” The officers then had the vehicle towed leaving the general manager and
17
4828-2903-9813.v1
her daughter stranded on a frigid November evening where temperatures were around 40
degrees.
20. March 2019, Russo files another GRAMA request for information from Bruce
and alleges defamation for sharing a non-confidential public document. Upon information and
belief, Russo’s threats were an effort to harass and intimidate Bruce.
21. Sometime in the middle of March of 2019, Cottonwood Heights police officers
begin showing up at Margarita Santini’s (Bruce’s friend and former campaign manager) home
three times a week for two weeks citing phantom complaints. Bruce and Santini attempt to
resolve this harassment with the city; however, on April 1, 2019, Santini’s landlord presented her
with a 30-day eviction notice stating he was contacted by the Cottonwood Heights Police and
told he must evict the occupants as the police had received numerous complaints.
22. The following week the landlord received a call from Cottonwood Heights Police
saying the occupants needed to be removed immediately so he presented Santini with a three-day
eviction notice.
23. In the Spring of 2019 an unprecedented State Bureau of Investigation sting was
conducted at a separate business owned by Bruce in West Valley. Upon information and belief,
this sting was the result of a “tip” from Chief Russo.
24. Later, all six of Bruce’s business entities are placed under a sales tax audit, again
and upon information and belief, at the suggestion of Russo.
25. Since this time, Stephanie Russo, Russo’s spouse who works for Bruce’s dentist,
secured a confidential email between Bruce and her dentist and gave said email to Russo who
later used the email as a basis for a “grievance” against Bruce.
18
4828-2903-9813.v1
26. On May 18, 2020, Russo caused the underlying Complaint to be filed.
27. Russo seeks compensation under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional
distress in his second listed cause of action against Bruce.
28. As a basis for this claim for damages, Russo alleges Bruce an others engaged in
conduct intended to inflict emotional stress on Russo.
29. Upon information and belief, the conduct alleged occurred while Bruce was
engaged in her duties as a council member.
30. Accordingly, under his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim Russo
seeks compensation for damages extending from Bruce’s actions as a city council member and
her public participation in the process of government.
31. Russo seeks compensation under a theory of defamation in his third listed cause
of action against Bruce.
32. As a basis for this claim for damages, Russo alleges Bruce and others published
defamatory statements about Russo.
34. Accordingly, under his defamation claim Russo seeks compensation for damages
extending from Bruce’s actions as a city council member and her public participation in the
process of government.
35. Russo seeks compensation under a theory of civil conspiracy in his fourth listed
cause of action against Bruce.
19
4828-2903-9813.v1
36. As a basis for this claim for damages, Russo alleges Bruce an others entered a
conspiracy to remove Russo from his position at Cottonwood Heights.
38. Accordingly, under his civil conspiracy claim Russo seeks compensation for
damages extending from Bruce’s actions as a city council member and her public participation in
the process of government.
39. Russo seeks compensation under a theory of invasion of privacy in his fifth listed
cause of action against Bruce.
40. As a basis for this claim for damages, Russo alleges Bruce an others disseminated
private information regarding Russo.
42. Accordingly, under his invasion of privacy claim Russo seeks compensation for
damages extending from Bruce’s actions as a city council member and her public participation in
the process of government.
43. Russo seeks compensation under a theory of tortious interference in his sixth
listed cause of action against Bruce.
44. As a basis for this claim for damages, Russo alleges Bruce an others intentionally
sought to induce Cottonwood Heights to breach its contract with Russo.
20
4828-2903-9813.v1
46. Accordingly, under his tortious interference with contract claim Russo seeks
compensation for damages extending from Bruce’s actions as a city council member and her
public participation in the process of government.
47. The National League of Cities and Towns has outlined the duties and obligations
of a city council member to include, inter alia, the following duties and obligations:
a. Review and approve the annual budget;
b. Establish long- and short-term objectives and priorities;
c. Oversee performance of the local public employees;
d. Oversee effectiveness of programs;
e. Establish tax rates;
f. Enter into legal contracts;
g. Borrow funds;
h. Pass ordinances and resolutions;
i. Modify the city's charter;
j. Regulate land use through zoning laws;
k. Regulate business activity through licensing and regulations;
l. Regulate public health and safety;
m. Exercise the power of eminent domain;
n. Communicate policies and programs to residents;
o. Respond to constituent needs and complaints; and
p. Represent the community to other levels of government.
21
4828-2903-9813.v1
48. The Cottonwood Heights Municipal Code further outlines the duties and
obligations of council members as follows:
The city council shall be the city’s legislative and governing body,
and shall adopt such ordinances and resolutions, and take such
other actions, as it shall deem proper. The city council shall
legislate by passing broad general policy directives and general
task assignments of a goal-oriented nature. The city council may
review the city manager's performance of the city council's
directives, and take such actions as are appropriate to assure the
city’s council’s policies established in its ordinances and
resolutions are being accomplished.
49. Council members of Cottonwood Heights are required to, inter alia, oversee and
supervise the Cottonwood Heights Police Department. Such oversight includes review of budget
and overall performance of the department and its chief.
50. Participation in local government as a city council member is protected under the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
51. Serving as a council member is a form of participation in the governmental
process.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Substantive Due Process Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Counterclaim Against Russo
52. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations of each of the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
53. Acting under the color of state law Russo and those working at his direction
denied Bruce of her substantive due process rights.
54. Russo’s misconduct demonstrated a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of
harm so great as to shock the conscience.
22
4828-2903-9813.v1
55. Specifically, Russo through a pattern of harassment and intimidation prevented
Bruce from enjoying life, liberty and property. Russo specifically targeted Bruce in a way to
interfere with and harm her enjoyment of relationships, freedom of movement, and property
interests.
56. Russo’s actions have caused Bruce to suffer physical and emotional harm
including, but not limited to, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of economic benefits, and
enjoyment of life.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Equal Protection Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Counterclaim Against Russo
58. Acting under the color of state law Russo and those working at his direction
denied Bruce of equal protection under the Constitution.
59. Bruce was treated differently by virtue of her being a female council member as
opposed to being a male council member.
60. At the direction of Russo, Bruce was intentionally treated differently than others
similarly situated and there is no rational basis for the disparate treatment. Olech v. Village of
Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (2000).
61. Russo deliberately treated Bruce differently than other citizens in the city of
Cottonwood Heights, and indeed, differently than other council members.
62. Russo’s misconduct demonstrated a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of
harm so great as to shock the conscience.
23
4828-2903-9813.v1
63. Specifically, Russo used police resources and authority to intimidate and harass
Bruce through a campaign of false allegations, investigations, and punitive targeting.
enjoyment of life.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Citizen Participation in Government Act (Utah Code § 78B-6-1405)

Counterclaim Against Russo
66. Bruce’s service as a council member and her participation in the Cottonwood
Height’s City Council constitute public participation in the process of government under Utah’s
anti-SLAPP statute, Utah Code § 78B-6-1405.
67. The statements and conduct upon which Russo’s Complaint are based, made by
Bruce in her capacity as a council member and/or as a private citizen participating in the process
of government, are forms of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
68. Russo commenced or continued this action without a substantial basis in fact and
law and without a substantial argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing
law.
69. Russo also commenced or continued this action for the purpose of harassing,
intimidating, punishing, or otherwise maliciously inhibiting Bruce’s free exercise of rights
24
4828-2903-9813.v1
granted under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This action is a mere
pretext designed primarily to prevent, interfere with, or chill Bruce’s proper participation in the
process of government and speech as a public representative.
70. In initiating and continuing this action against Bruce, Russo did not reasonably
believe that, under the facts known to him, Russo’s claims against Bruce were valid under
applicable law and did not otherwise act in good faith.
71. As a result of Russo’s conduct as set forth above, Bruce is entitled to recover her
costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this matter, as well as other
compensatory damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Monell Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Crossclaim Against City of Cottonwood Heights
72. Crossclaim Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations of each of the
Chief Russo as Policy Maker
73. Cottonwood Heights is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the harm perpetrated by
Russo on Bruce.
74. Russo acted and continues to act as a final policymaker of Cottonwood Heights
during his tenure as Cottonwood Heights Chief of Police.
75. Under Cottonwood Heights Code § 2.130.040 the Chief of Police for Cottonwood
Heights has authority to “make and adopt rules and procedures for the operation and
administration of the police department.”
25
4828-2903-9813.v1
76. Russo had the authority to set policy and create or promulgate policies related to
the administration of police efforts, generally, and how those action may or may not harass or
intimidate citizens of the city.
77. Evidence of Russo’s authority is found in the tacit support Russo has received
from City Council Members, City Managers, and others with respect to his harassment and
intimidation of Bruce through filing unwarranted GRAMA requests, seizing Bruce’s personal
computer, and other such actions.
78. Cottonwood Heights has gone so far as to hold council meetings without Bruce
present in order to discuss how the city might placate Russo.
79. Accordingly, Russo is the final arbiter of complaints regarding police harassment
and intimidation acting as a Cottonwood Heights policymaker.
80. Because Russo’s intentional misconduct against Bruce arose out of his position as
a Cottonwood Heights policymaker, Cottonwood Heights is liable for that misconduct.
Cottonwood Height’s Deliberate Indifference
81. Long before becoming Chief of Police for Cottonwood Heights, Russo has been
well known to abuse positions of power and influence.
82. Upon information and belief, concerns about Russo’s propensity to abuse his
position of power were never fully investigated or vetted.
83. More concerning is the pattern or harassment and abuse exercised by Russo while
in his current position of authority that has been left unchecked or unquestioned. See, e.g.,
https://utahstories.com/2017/04/attack-of-thedeveloposaurus/.
26
4828-2903-9813.v1
84. Once Russo began engaging in a pattern of harassment and intimidation against
Bruce, Bruce reported the same to city officials. These complaints fell on deaf ears and Russo
was never investigated or censured.
85. By ignoring Russo’s proclivity to use his position of authority to harass and
intimidate citizens of Cottonwood Heights, the city has shown a deliberate indifference toward
Bruce and others and/or a deliberate indifference toward Russo’s abuse of power.
enjoyment of life.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Russo and Cottonwood Heights as
follows:
1. For judgment in Bruce’s favor and against Russo for violation of Bruce’s Equal
Protection rights.
2. For judgment in Bruce’s favor and against Russo for violation of Bruce’s Due
Process rights;
3. For an award of compensatory damages in favor of Bruce and against
Cottonwood Heights, including damages resulting from emotional distress, in excess of an
amount of $300,000, to be determined at trial;
4. For an award of compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Bruce and
against Russo, including damages resulting from emotional distress, in an amount in excess of
$300,000 to be determined at trial;
27
4828-2903-9813.v1
5. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action;
6. For an award of post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.
JURY DEMAND
Bruce hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues triable thereto.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of August, 2020.
AS TO THE SECOND AMENDED

ANSWER:
/s/ Austin J. Riter

Austin J. Riter
AS TO THE SECOND AMENDED

COUNTERCLAIM AND
CROSSCLAIM:

Michael W. Young
Attorneys for Counterclaimant and

Crossclaimant Natalie C. Bruce
28
4828-2903-9813.v1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3rd day of August 2020, I filed the foregoing
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIM, AND CROSSCLAIM OF
DEFENDANT NATALIE C. BRUCE via the GreenFiling system, which electronically served
the following:
T. Jake Hinkins (jake@andersonhinkins.com)

Taylor L. Broadhead (taylor@andersonhinkins.com)
ANDERSON HINKINS
881 W. Baxter Dr.
South Jordan, Utah 84095
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Ernest Robert Russo, Jr.
Matthew D. Church (mchurch@pckutah.com)

Jeremy M. Seeley (jseeley@pckutah.com)
136 East South Temple, Suite 1700
Attorneys for Defendant and Crossclaim Defendant Cottonwood Heights
29
4828-2903-9813.v1

Police Chief V Cwood Heights

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Police Chief V Cwood Heights

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Austin J. Riter (11755) (ariter@parrbrown.

Attorneys for Defendant Natalie C. Bruce

Michael W. Young (12282) (MYoung@parsonsbehle.com)

Attorneys for Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant Natalie C. Bruce

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ERNEST ROBERT RUSSO, JR.,

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2020.

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER

/s/ Michael W. Young

DATED this 1st day of August, 2020.

/s/ T. Jake Hinkins (w/permission

DATED this 31st day of July 2020.

PLANT, CHRISTENSEN & KANELL

/s/ Matthew D. Church (w/permission)

GreenFiling system, which electronically served the following:

T. Jake Hinkins (jake@andersonhinkins.com)

Matthew D. Church (mchurch@pckutah.com)

Attorneys for Defendant and Crossclaim Defendant Cottonwood Heights

/s/ Michael W. Young

Attorneys for Defendant Natalie C. Bruce

Michael W. Young (12282) (MYoung@parsonsbehle.com)

Attorneys for Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant Natalie C. Bruce

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ERNEST ROBERT RUSSO, JR.,

(“Russo”) and for her defenses states and avers as follows:

Bruce responds to the specifically numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows,

and investigation may warrant.

1. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

2. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

3. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.

[FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION]

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

and communications.” Deny each and every remaining allegation.

thereof, deny such allegations.

16. In responding to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Bruce incorporates her responses

form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny as to Cottonwood Heights.

form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny as to Cottonwood Heights.

form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny as to Cottonwood Heights.

form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny as to Cottonwood Heights.

[INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]

21. In responding to paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Bruce incorporates her responses

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

27. In responding to paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Bruce incorporates her responses

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

35. In responding to paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Bruce incorporates her responses

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.

thereof, deny such allegations.